15 But is not the transgression like the gift? Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God's grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Messiah has abounded for the many. 16 And is not the result of the gift like that which resulted from the one who sinned? Indeed, for the judgment from one sin resulted in condemnation, but the gift came from many transgressions, resulting in righteousness. 17 For if death by the transgression of the one reigned through the one man, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Messiah (Romans 5.15-17).
Before I jump into this passage, I do want to mention a significant piece of v. 14, which I did not discuss in my earlier post. At the end of v. 14, Paul says that Adam is a type of the one to come. Now, I am aware of differing theories regarding typology, but I will not be able to get into them here (The reader is directed to Richard Davidson's book Typology in Scripture for a good discussion.) But a few things do need to be said about typology. First, as I see it, typology is God-designed, and it begins with the end in mind. What I mean by this is that God first designs the goal or fulfillment of the type (also known as the antitype), and then designs the type. Thus, in the case of Adam, first it was determined before the foundation of the world that the Son would take on flesh, and be named Jesus, and right the wrongs of the first Adam. Thus, the first Adam was made in the likeness of the second Adam. Because of this, we do not talk about how Christ was like and dislike Adam. Instead, we talk about how Adam was like and dislike Jesus. Second, because the antitype is the model for the type, the type functions prophetically regarding its fulfillment. Thus, for example, the first exodus was the type, which was patterned after the second exodus, and does not stand complete until the second exodus (the type's fulfillment) is complete. Third, these types are revealed all over in Scripture, and to understand Scripture, we must understand types. Fourth, though I just said that we must understand types so that we can understand Scripture, I do not subscribe to anything like 'typological interpretation'. Though I know what those who use such a term are intending by the phrase, I think the phrase is wrong-headed. We do not need to do typological interpretation. Instead, we must simply interpret the Scriptures. In the Scriptues, God revealed types, but types do not take a certain science to understand them. Instead, what is required is that we simply read the Scriptures, and read them well.
Paulos, these are some ideas that I have after doing a good bit of investigation on these things. Are there any places where I need to sharpen my understanding?
Now to the textual comments. Though I am going against all major translations, I think a better way to construe vv. 15 and 16 are as interrogatives expecting an affimative answer rather than indicatives. Here is v. 15: "But is not the transgression like the gift? Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God's grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Messiah has abounded for the many. " Given what I said above regarding typology, it seems to me that Paul here is working more with comparison between Christ and Adam rather than contrast. Now, of course, there is contrast, for one was obedient, while the other was unfaithful. And there is an a fortiori relationship between the type and the antitype, but I still think there is a great deal of comparison. Now the problem with seeing the comparison is that it seems odd that God would set up Adam, who was disobedient to be a type of the obedient one. But this ought not cause us to many problems, since God also designed Jonah in this way. Because Jesus would come and die and rise again, God designed Jonah to be a type of the one to come, even though Jonah would be a disobedient prophet.
So back to v. 15. In verse 15 Paul is showing the correspondence between Adam and Christ. Indeed the transgression of Adam is like God's grace which abounds to the many from the one man Jesus Messiah. The effects of Adam's rebellion, many dying, are to point beyond themselves to the Last Adam, who because of God's grace would bring a gift that abounds and flourishes to the many. What came in Jesus fulfills and surpasses all that came through Adam. This comparison is continued in v. 16. Adam's disobedience brought condemnation, but the gift came after many transgressions, which resulted in righteousness. The Second Adam and his benefits far out weigh what resulted from Adam, because the gift came after the many transgressions.
In verse 17 a somewhat strange shift is made as Paul grounds his previous argument. Paul speaks of death reigning because of the transgression of the one man Adam. One would think that the fulfillment of this would be that God reigns in life or that Jesus reigns in life (Indeed these ideas are present, but not put to the foreground). Instead of these being in the foreground, Paul speaks of those who belong to the one man Jesus Messiah as reigning in life. Wright mentions this in his commentary (p. 528), and I think it is rich. Because of the gift in the one man Jesus, those who belong to him will reign in life, as a fulfillment of the reign given to Man in creation (Genesis 1.26ff). This idea, like the typology of Christ and Adam, is not simply a return to the original design of the first creation. No, instead it is an escalation. We will reign in life, the life brought about by Jesus the one who was marked out as Son of God by the resurrection of the dead (Romans 1.4).
Well, Paulos, there is much here, and much that I have not mentioned. Please lead me into more and deeper understanding. Grace to you as you ponder and correct!
Paulos, these are some ideas that I have after doing a good bit of investigation on these things. Are there any places where I need to sharpen my understanding?
Now to the textual comments. Though I am going against all major translations, I think a better way to construe vv. 15 and 16 are as interrogatives expecting an affimative answer rather than indicatives. Here is v. 15: "But is not the transgression like the gift? Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God's grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Messiah has abounded for the many. " Given what I said above regarding typology, it seems to me that Paul here is working more with comparison between Christ and Adam rather than contrast. Now, of course, there is contrast, for one was obedient, while the other was unfaithful. And there is an a fortiori relationship between the type and the antitype, but I still think there is a great deal of comparison. Now the problem with seeing the comparison is that it seems odd that God would set up Adam, who was disobedient to be a type of the obedient one. But this ought not cause us to many problems, since God also designed Jonah in this way. Because Jesus would come and die and rise again, God designed Jonah to be a type of the one to come, even though Jonah would be a disobedient prophet.
So back to v. 15. In verse 15 Paul is showing the correspondence between Adam and Christ. Indeed the transgression of Adam is like God's grace which abounds to the many from the one man Jesus Messiah. The effects of Adam's rebellion, many dying, are to point beyond themselves to the Last Adam, who because of God's grace would bring a gift that abounds and flourishes to the many. What came in Jesus fulfills and surpasses all that came through Adam. This comparison is continued in v. 16. Adam's disobedience brought condemnation, but the gift came after many transgressions, which resulted in righteousness. The Second Adam and his benefits far out weigh what resulted from Adam, because the gift came after the many transgressions.
In verse 17 a somewhat strange shift is made as Paul grounds his previous argument. Paul speaks of death reigning because of the transgression of the one man Adam. One would think that the fulfillment of this would be that God reigns in life or that Jesus reigns in life (Indeed these ideas are present, but not put to the foreground). Instead of these being in the foreground, Paul speaks of those who belong to the one man Jesus Messiah as reigning in life. Wright mentions this in his commentary (p. 528), and I think it is rich. Because of the gift in the one man Jesus, those who belong to him will reign in life, as a fulfillment of the reign given to Man in creation (Genesis 1.26ff). This idea, like the typology of Christ and Adam, is not simply a return to the original design of the first creation. No, instead it is an escalation. We will reign in life, the life brought about by Jesus the one who was marked out as Son of God by the resurrection of the dead (Romans 1.4).
Well, Paulos, there is much here, and much that I have not mentioned. Please lead me into more and deeper understanding. Grace to you as you ponder and correct!
No comments:
Post a Comment